Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Equivalence: Will the Real Concept Please Stand Up

[Jim]

@dga471

I’m not sure you appreciate the richness and depth of what it means to “track matter moving through space”. Physicists measure many quantities besides position and velocity. They measure charge, spin, temperature, fluorescence, mass, electric and magnetic fields, energy levels, phase transitions, and so on.

Oh, OK. I was talking about in the context of experiments for verifying physical theories. I wasn’t thinking of physics in general which is what I think you’re referring to. I agree with you that physics is about a lot of amazing things.

@dga471

I’m curious, what background do you have in physics?

I’m no physicist if that’s what you’re asking. For that reason I don’t generally question what is said to be verified. But I do question some inferences and assumptions made by scientists which I think I’m justified in doing.

I think making reasonable inferences based on evidence is something that any layperson like myself is capable of doing. If someone can show justifiably that my inferences are not sound or I’m misinformed about the evidence then I’m willing to acknowledge it. But until someone presents justifiable objections to my views that I can’t give a reasonable response to, I think I’m warranted to hold to those views.

@dga471

Regarding your first alternative hypothesis, how would clocks run slower from being affected by velocity, which is no other than distance traveled over time? Please explain.

Regarding your second alternative hypothesis, how would clocks run slower from being affected by gravity?

They’re not necessarily hypothesis in the formal sense, just propositions that seem plausible enough. Clocks are physical instruments, are they not? Gravity and velocity have physical effects on physical objects, do they not? So it’s plausible, is it not? However, I would question whether time slowing down is a plausible proposition. At least I can’t make any sense of it.

We can do experiments with clocks to observe what happens to them at different altitudes or velocities because they are physical instruments. But we can’t do those things in the same way with time. It’s not an instrument like a clock. It’s one of those realities that can’t be observed and so we have to depend on inferences from evidence to inform us about it.

In fact, we can’t even say for sure it exists. It’s possible it isn’t even an actual existing entity of the universe but just an abstract human convention for measuring rates of change. In that case it seems it would be even more difficult to make any sense of it changing speed.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

Oh, OK. I was talking about in the context of experiments for verifying physical theories. I wasn’t thinking of physics in general which is what I think you’re referring to.

Why do you seem to think a physical theory cannot involve charge, spin, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and energy levels in its equations, which can then be verified using experiments?

@Jim

I’m no physicist if that’s what you’re asking.

OK, I know you’re not a physicist, but what do you know of physics even as a lay person? There’s lots of books and videos available out there (even at the layperson level) explaining many theories and experiments in physics that can gradually make one’s understanding of these issues more concrete and up to date. More specifically, do you have any sort of technical background, for example in engineering, computer programming, mathematics, chemistry, or something similar?

@Jim

They’re not necessarily hypothesis in the formal sense, just propositions that seem plausible enough. Clocks are physical instruments, are they not?

Yes.

@Jim

Gravity and velocity have physical effects on physical objects, do they not?

In the context of this argument, we don’t know that, since that’s what we’re debating.

@Jim

So it’s plausible, is it not?

No, not with just the information that you’ve given. Remember, the problem is that we’re trying to explain why muons seem to decay much more slowly when they rapidly fly down to the Earth. I’m also not assuming that general relativity or special relativity is true, since that’s the very thing that we’re trying to debate. We’re just assuming a “common sense”, classical view of the world.

Now, we know that clocks are physical objects, and that gravity exists and affects physical things. But the mere fact that there is an object X (a clock) and some force Y (gravity) that may have effects on certain physical objects given certain conditions does not provide a plausible alternative solution to the problem. You must articulate a clear alternative hypothesis that can reproduce the data you saw. To say otherwise is just wishful thinking, not good science or good philosophy. I might just as well posit that may be the movement of Jupiter affected the operation of the clock, or the sound of a cricket on the ground affected it.

Note that when I put forward the main hypothesis that special relativity is true and that time dilation explains the slower decay, I’m not just putting that as a bare proposition. From the basic postulates of SR, one can straightforwardly calculate pretty precisely how much dilation happens and match that up with the empirical data.

Regarding your first alternative hypothesis: if gravity is affecting the measurement, how does that come about? Nothing in the Newtonian understanding of gravity predicts that. You have to modify our understanding of gravity, which may have ripple effects on all the other things we know about gravity.

Regarding the second hypothesis: if velocity is affecting the measurement, how does that come about? And how does that differ from the time dilation hypothesis?

@Jim

We can do experiments with clocks to observe what happens to them at different altitudes or velocities because they are physical instruments. But we can’t do those things in the same way with time. It’s not an instrument like a clock. It’s one of those realities that can’t be observed and so we have to depend on inferences from evidence to inform us about it.

Are you saying that there is no way to measure time?

[Jim]

@dga471

In the context of this argument, we don’t know that, since that’s what we’re debating.

What we know from SR experiments are the verified measurements. Those are relevant facts. Whether it’s actually time or clocks slowing down has to be inferred from those facts. As I understand it we know from actual experiments with clocks that altitude and velocity seem to be affecting them in some way. Those are also relevant facts.

So as far as I can tell we’ve got two possible options. Either time itself can slow down and affect how clocks run, or clocks can be affected by gravity and velocity. I would say that it’s a much bigger leap to infer from those facts that time itself is slowing down and affecting the clocks than to infer that the clocks are being affected by gravity and velocity.

I think it just gets back to the issue I’m raising. It seems that the distinction between empirically verifiable and unverifiable reality is being blurred. Once that distinction is recognized, the former is for the most part not at issue. It’s the latter that is. And the only way I’m aware of that we can be informed about the latter is by inference from relevant evidence.

@dga471

Are you saying that there is no way to measure time?

Not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking if I don’t think clocks measure time?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

What we know from SR experiments are the verified measurements. Those are relevant facts. Whether it’s actually time or clocks slowing down has to be inferred from those facts.

In the case of the muons, we are measuring the physical process of particle decay. The stability of muons is a direct result of physical constants, or at least what we understand to be constants. It isn’t as if muons are a gear driven clock with a hour, minute, and second hand.

So how do you think velocity would change the physical constants that govern muon decay? What is the mechanism? Einstein’s equations accurately predict observations, so why do you reject the theory?

@Jim

I would say that it’s a much bigger leap to infer from those facts that time itself is slowing down and affecting the clocks than to infer that the clocks are being affected by gravity and velocity.

I would say just the opposite. I don’t see how velocity would change the most basic physical constants that are measured to be the same throughout the universe. Why would velocity change the stability of muons?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

Either time itself can slow down and affect how clocks run, or clocks can be affected by gravity and velocity. I would say that it’s a much bigger leap to infer from those facts that time itself is slowing down and affecting the clocks than to infer that the clocks are being affected by gravity and velocity.

My point is that there are more possibilities than just gravity and velocity affecting the clock. You could also argue that air pressure, sound, air composition, light, psychic powers, and and so on are affecting it. What actual scientists do is attempt to isolate each possible effect by varying each proposed effect, evaluating the magnitude of its effect on the measurement, and shielding the experiment from these effects as best as they can. So, if you suspect that light from the sun affects the operation of the clock, you can put the clock in a black box that shields it from light. Similarly with air pressure, sound, etc. - you try as best as you can to take into account all the possible spurious effects and make their effect smaller than the proposed main effect that you’re trying to measure (muon lifetime). This is something that all scientists doing precision measurement regularly do.

And I believe that this has been done for the case of the muon lifetime experiment, as well as all the other reputable experiments that claim to verify the claims of SR. The idea is that even after taking into account and suppressing all of these spurious effects, the lifetime is longer than expected if time dilation were not true.

So the ball is in your court to give an alternate possibility that has not yet been explored yet. Perhaps all of these scientists missed something. Which is not impossible, but mere possibility is insufficient. You need to suggest something concrete.

@Jim

Not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking if I don’t think clocks measure time?

Yes, what do you think clocks measure? What can we learn about time from whatever clocks measure?

Note that in the context of physics, a “clock” is any oscillator which ticks at a sufficiently constant rate in the absence of known confounding changes. Most precise experiments use atomic clocks which are well-understood and well-constructed to have a high, quantified level of accuracy.

Also, I’m interested in this particular question, which you didn’t answer:

@dga471

Why do you seem to think a physical theory cannot involve charge, spin, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and energy levels in its equations, which can then be verified using experiments?

I’m asking because it seems you have a peculiar definition of physical theory if it can only involve time and space. It might somewhat illuminate our disagreement(s).

[dga471 (Daniel)]

Just to be clear, my point with Jim is not to question the philosophical legitimacy of neo-Lorentzian interpretations of SR, because Jim hasn’t invoked that at all in this discussion. Rather, my point is to demonstrate that if you want to take such an interpretation, you still have to articulate it in a way that fits the experimental results as well as the “conventional” interpretation. You cannot simply put the scientific evidence side-by-side with some “common sense” intuitions about space and time and using “abductive reasoning” reject one or the other.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

Absolutely, @dga471. My comment is in response to @T_aquaticus. (For others reading this: The Muon Lifetime Experiment and Neo-Lorentzian Interpretations of Special Relativity)

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

So how do you think velocity would change the physical constants that govern muon decay? What is the mechanism? Einstein’s equations accurately predict observations, so why do you reject the theory?

I don’t reject the mechanics that are verified. But I do reject certain inferences made about unverifiable reality from concepts employed by successful theories, which in the case of this particular discussion is concerning time. My hole point is that concepts employed by successful theories do not entail that they are representative of actual realities that are beyond verification. At best they are only evidence of such and need to be judged along side all the other relevant evidence.

@T_aquaticus

Why would velocity change the stability of muons?

That’s not what’s being discussed at present. We’re talking about what inference makes the most sense of relevant evidence for the unverifiable reality of whether time can slow down or not.

@dga471

Similarly with air pressure, sound, etc. - you try as best as you can to take into account all the possible spurious effects and make their effect smaller than the proposed main effect that you’re trying to measure (muon lifetime). This is something that all scientists doing precision measurement regularly do.
And I believe that this has been done for the case of the muon lifetime experiment, as well as all the other reputable experiments that claim to verify the claims of SR.

Is that actually the case with the muon experiment? First, I’m not sure this experiment addresses the question of what is the lifetime of a muon which you seem to suggest. It seems to me to be addressing the question of which mechanical theory captures what’s observed of muon flux at different levels.

Seems to me all they’ve done is measure the flux of muons at 10 km altitude and at ground level, and then used relativistic and non-relativistic theories to see which matches up with the measurements. And the answer seems to be the relativistic theory.

So now we’re left to deal with the question of whether the concept of time slowing down employed by the theory is what best explains the unverifiable reality it conceptualizes. To do so we have to look at all the relevant evidence.

And the only evidence that can be provided that I’m aware of for time slowing down is the success of the theory that employs that concept. However, universal perception and objective observation relevant to the question would suggest otherwise.

Also experiments have been done where atomic clocks were put on airplanes and flown around the earth slowed down compared to atomic clocks left on the ground suggesting that it’s about the instruments slowing down, not actual time itself since, other than the success of relativity as a theory, there is no evidence to suggest that time itself has any causal powers.

@dga471

I’m asking because it seems you have a peculiar definition of physical theory if it can only involve time and space. It might somewhat illuminate our disagreement(s).

Sorry, I was a little mixed up there with terminology. Thanks for pointing that out. What I’m referring to are physical theories of mechanics in particular. If I’m not mistaken they deal for the most part, if not exclusively, with the motion of matter through space. So I should have qualified what I said to say physical theory of mechanics.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

Seems to me all they’ve done is measure the flux of muons at 10 km altitude and at ground level, and then used relativistic and non-relativistic theories to see which matches up with the measurements. And the answer seems to be the relativistic theory.

So, to be clear, are you saying that if you were shown evidence that scientists have studied systematic effects in the muon experiment that could effect it, yet still found the longer muon lifetime, that would change your position?

@Jim

Thanks for pointing that out. What I’m referring to are physical theories of mechanics in particular.

Mechanics simply means any branch of physics dealing with forces. Thus quantum mechanics, for example, can incorporate things other than mass, position, and velocity - it can incorporate spin (intrinsic angular momentum), for example.

Classical mechanics may be closer to what you’re talking to, as it is the branch of physics which studies macroscopic forces. However, even classical mechanics is not entirely separate from electricity and magnetism, for example in the case of the Lorentz force.

@Jim

@T_aquaticus

Why would velocity change the stability of muons?

That’s not what’s being discussed at present. We’re talking about what inference makes the most sense of relevant evidence for the unverifiable reality of whether time can slow down or not.

I think @T_aquaticus’s question is very relevant, because you’re proposing that there is another, reasonable inference from the evidence. Thus, you have to propose that there is a plausible, clearly articulated mechanism by which the scientific evidence can show up as it is, assuming your preferred philosophical assumptions. That’s the burden of proof.

@Jim

Also experiments have been done where atomic clocks were put on airplanes and flown around the earth slowed down compared to atomic clocks left on the ground suggesting that it’s about the instruments slowing down, not actual time itself since, other than the success of relativity as a theory, there is no evidence to suggest that time itself has any causal powers.

I observe that basically by this reply, you’re questioning whether clocks signify anything about time. It implies that we cannot measure time at all, as my clock could be slowing down, but I don’t know if your clock is also slowing down in the same way, or maybe even speeding up. Related to this is that you also haven’t answered my question regarding clocks, which is very important:

@dga471

Yes, what do you think clocks measure? What can we learn about time from whatever clocks measure?

Note that in the context of physics, a “clock” is any oscillator which ticks at a sufficiently constant rate in the absence of known confounding changes. Most precise experiments use atomic clocks which are well-understood and well-constructed to have a high, quantified level of accuracy.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I don’t reject the mechanics that are verified.

Einstein’s equations predict specific observations, and those observations have been verified. Relativity has been verified.

If this isn’t what you mean by verified, then you are going to have to explain what you mean by that word.

@Jim

That’s not what’s being discussed at present. We’re talking about what inference makes the most sense of relevant evidence for the unverifiable reality of whether time can slow down or not.

The muon experiment does verify the slowing of time. We could add other experiments, such as the Hafele-Keating experiment that measured the changing of time on airplanes flying around the Earth.

Hafele–Keating experiment

On an even more basic level, we observe a constant speed of light in all inertial frames. From first principles, this points to a slowing of time. How? Look at this thought experiment:

We have two observers: one is standing by the train tracks and the other is on the train that is moving by. On the train is a light source and a mirror. The photons shoot up, bounce off the mirror, and go back down to a sensor. You can measure the time it takes and the length of the path, and both observers measure the same speed of light.

Here is the interesting part. The two observers do not measure the same path length. The observer on the train measures the path as d in the picture above. The observer next to the train measures a LONGER path, the diagonal lines. This means time has to be different since you have the same speed but different path lengths. Using the measurements from the diagram above, you can derive the Lorentz transformations from first principles, and these are the predictions made by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Read more here:

http://dallaswinwin.com/Special_Relativity/timedelation.htm

Again, we can derive these predictions from first principles, and they are verified by observations.

@Jim

Also experiments have been done where atomic clocks were put on airplanes and flown around the earth slowed down compared to atomic clocks left on the ground suggesting that it’s about the instruments slowing down, not actual time itself since, other than the success of relativity as a theory, there is no evidence to suggest that time itself has any causal powers.

What mechanism would cause these clocks to slow down or speed up? Why would this mechanism exactly mimic the predictions made by Einstein’s equations? The very fact that Einstein’s equations predict the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment is what evidences and verifies the theory.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jim

concepts employed by successful theories do not entail that they are representative of actual realities that are beyond verification. At best they are only evidence of such and need to be judged along side all the other relevant evidence.

What other evidence? Successful theories, relativity included, are already judged along side of all relevant evidence. Philosophical musings are not evidence.

@Jim

And the only evidence that can be provided that I’m aware of for time slowing down is the success of the theory that employs that concept. However, universal perception and objective observation relevant to the question would suggest otherwise.

Nothing suggests otherwise. We are not in possession of universal perception, but while relativity may not be a final theory, there is no objective observation so far which would serve to suggest that time itself is not relative. That is why the theory is considered successful. You are positing a conflict where none exists. That your intuition, metaphysics, perception, or philosophy do not agree means that either these do not apply or are wrong.

@Jim

experiments have been done where atomic clocks were put on airplanes and flown around the earth slowed down compared to atomic clocks left on the ground suggesting that it’s about the instruments slowing down, not actual time itself since

This sentence does not really make sense as presented. That time itself slows down is perfectly consistent with these experiments.

[Jim]

@dga471

So, to be clear, are you saying that if you were shown evidence that scientists have studied systematic effects in the muon experiment that could effect it, yet still found the longer muon lifetime, that would change your position?

I’m not sure. If what you are talking about would provide relevant evidence that would inform questions about unverifiable reality, and it was convincingly sufficient to outweigh evidence to the contrary, then yes.

For example, if it could be convincingly shown that when clocks slow down it’s actually time that is the cause behind that happening, then that would be evidence that would serve to strengthen the case for the slowing of time.

But with unverifiable issues like the nature of time there’s always going to be room for debate unless an instrument could be invented that would allow for observation of actual time as an entity and it could be observed changing speed. But that’s not possible. So we’re stuck with looking at evidence and making a determination as to what is the best inference for explaining the evidence.

@dga471

I think @T_aquaticus’s question is very relevant, because you’re proposing that there is another, reasonable inference from the evidence.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what is meant by the question. The particular inference I’m making in regards to the nature of time is that there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggests that time itself can physically cause clocks to slow down, but that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that most likely something physical with the ability to causally affect the instrument is the cause of the slowing of the clock.

So how is that related to the question of why velocity would change the stability of muons? Again, I believe the distinction between verifiable and unverifiable reality is being blurred here. Mechanisms simply predict or confirm verifiable observations. But that in itself says nothing directly about the truth of unverifiable conceptualizations of possible reality.

@dga471

I observe that basically by this reply, you’re questioning whether clocks signify anything about time. It implies that we cannot measure time at all, as my clock could be slowing down, but I don’t know if your clock is also slowing down in the same way, or maybe even speeding up.

Again, I suspect a blurring of the issues here. You seem to be referring to how time is represented in mechanical formulas. But that’s not what the issue is about. It’s about the unverifiable reality of the nature of time. In the context of what we experience just because a clock runs slow doesn’t mean it can’t track time. It just won’t be as accurate as a clock that runs correctly. That’s all.

@dga471

Yes, what do you think clocks measure?

Time.

@dga471

What can we learn about time from whatever clocks measure?

Approximately how long it takes for certain things to happen. Don’t know if that’s the answer you wanted, but it’s somewhat unclear to me exactly what you’re asking.

@T_aquaticus

Einstein’s equations predict specific observations, and those observations have been verified. Relativity has been verified.

Agreed. I’ve already mentioned several time that I’m not questioning what’s been empirically verified. That’s not what I’m rejecting. I’m rejecting what’s inferred from concepts employed by successful theories because it seems to me that all the relevant evidence suggests otherwise. If you read the op and related posts you’ll see that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

@RonSewell

Nothing suggests otherwise.

Do you consider that concepts employed by successful theories entail that those unverifiable conceptions of reality are in fact true representations of what unverifiable reality is really like?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

It’s about the unverifiable reality of the nature of time. In the context of what we experience just because a clock runs slow doesn’t mean it can’t track time. It just won’t be as accurate as a clock that runs correctly. That’s all.

I’m confused as to which one is your position:

1. The clocks we have currently are too crude and inaccurate to verify whether time dilation can occur, but maybe one day they will be, if we keep improving them.
2. Time is fundamentally unverifiable. Thus, even if we can construct an extremely accurate clock, including verifying via independent means that it doesn’t get affected by velocity or gravity or air pressure or other causes, it would still be useless to say anything about whether time dilation can occur.

@Jim

But with unverifiable issues like the nature of time there’s always going to be room for debate unless an instrument could be invented that would allow for observation of actual time as an entity and it could be observed changing speed.

What would such an instrument look like? Are you suggesting such an instrument is possible, but we haven’t found it yet? Or are you saying it’s fundamentally impossible?
What’s confusing to me is that you keep repeating the word “unverifiable” with regards to time, but you also talk about “sufficient evidence”. I think there’s a tension here. If something is fundamentally unverifiable then no amount of evidence will be of any use. But if the unverifiability is simply because of we haven’t done the relevant empirical investigation at the present moment but can do it in the future, then that’s a different story.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

For example, if it could be convincingly shown that when clocks slow down it’s actually time that is the cause behind that happening, then that would be evidence that would serve to strengthen the case for the slowing of time.

I would be interested in hearing you expand on this.

The current clock standard is the caesium standard:

Caesium standard

The output frequency is in hertz which is cycles per second. Time is part of the clock. If there were no time then you wouldn’t have frequency. By measuring the number of cycles you can measure time.

These are also the types of clocks that are used to test relativity. When these clocks are in different positions with respect to Earth’s gravitational field they record different rates of time. The physical state of the clock mechanism doesn’t change because the same input is exciting the caesium atoms and the laws of physics determine the output frequency.

What part of this process are you rejecting or doubting?

@Jim

But with unverifiable issues like the nature of time there’s always going to be room for debate unless an instrument could be invented that would allow for observation of actual time as an entity and it could be observed changing speed. But that’s not possible.

If something outputs a frequency in cycles per second and we measure the number of cycles why can’t we then determine the amount of actual time that has passed? For me, actual time is the aspect of the universe that involves the unfolding of events. Things like entropy make no sense without time. Things like movement and frequency both occur in actual time. Do you think differently?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jim

I’m rejecting what’s inferred from concepts employed by successful theories because it seems to me that all the relevant evidence suggests otherwise.

@Jim

Do you consider that concepts employed by successful theories entail that those unverifiable conceptions of reality are in fact true representations of what unverifiable reality is really like?

My point is that if the conception of reality is, as you say, unverifiable, you cannot object to that conception on the basis of “objective observation relevant to the question” when all experimentation supports that concept. One, what you consider to be objective observation seems much more a subjective intuition. Two, objective observation is verification. Please make up your mind as to what constitutes evidence, observation, and verification.

[Jim]

@dga471

I’m confused as to which one is your position:

1. The clocks we have currently are too crude and inaccurate to verify whether time dilation can occur, but maybe one day they will be, if we keep improving them.
2. Time is fundamentally unverifiable. Thus, even if we can construct an extremely accurate clock, including verifying via independent means that it doesn’t get affected by velocity or gravity or air pressure or other causes, it would still be useless to say anything about whether time dilation can occur.

Neither. I think the confusion may be with conflating the measurement of duration of time with the actual nature of time, which is what I’m concerned with. From what I can tell, time dilation is simply about measuring the duration of time.

The question I’m asking is what is the cause of the measurement being slower than what it seems it should be. Is it the clock being slowed by something like gravity, or velocity, which we know from observation have causal effects, or is it the slowing of time itself which we have no observation that I’m aware of to verify such a claim about the very nature of time?

So instead of “time is fundamentally unverifiable,” to reflect what I’m concerned with it should say “the nature of time is fundamentally unverifiable.” And by fundamentally unverifiable I’m assuming you mean beyond the limits of what is or ever will be humanly possible technologically, or otherwise, to verify. It’s not that duration of time cannot be measured, it’s that the nature of time cannot be verified. For one thing it’s not even clear what exactly it is. In fact, we cannot even say for sure whether its existence is concrete or abstract.

@dga471

Or are you saying it’s fundamentally impossible?

Yes. As far as I know, no one ever has observed, nor is there any evidence to suggest we ever will be able to observe the nature of time. Just like no one ever has observed, nor is there any evidence to suggest we ever will be able to observe the nature of space.

@dga471

If something is fundamentally unverifiable then no amount of evidence will be of any use.

So if I understand this correctly, you don’t seem to think we can infer from evidence with any degree of certainty truth about entities or events that are fundamentally unverifiable. Is that correct?

@T_aquaticus

I would be interested in hearing you expand on this.

Not sure what there is to expand on. If you’re asking how one would do such, I don’t think it’s possible. But if someone wants to give it a try then by all means they should go for it. My position is that it’s fundamentally unverifiable and therefore we can only be informed about it by relevant evidence.

@T_aquaticus

What part of this process are you rejecting or doubting?

The cause of the clocks recording different rates. I would argue that the fact that the clocks are in different positions within the Earth’s gravitational fields strongly suggests that those fields are affecting the clocks readings in some form or another.

@T_aquaticus

If something outputs a frequency in cycles per second and we measure the number of cycles why can’t we then determine the amount of actual time that has passed?

I never said we couldn’t. I don’t know how else to say what I’ve tried to express from several different angles. I’m not concerned about measurements of duration of time. My concern is about the nature of time itself.

@RonSewell

Two, objective observation is verification. Please make up your mind as to what constitutes evidence, observation, and verification.

I’m not sure how you define those terms, but to me evidence is a fact or information that can be used to support a claim. “Objective and verifiable observation” is a form of evidence that can be used to directly verify something or to indirectly infer truths about that which is fundamentally unverifiable.

So if you agree that the answer to the question I posed is no, then the only option available to determine if a concept is representative of true actual reality is to look at relevant evidence and follow the evidence where it leads. If you don’t agree, then that is the starting point of where we disagree.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I would argue that the fact that the clocks are in different positions within the Earth’s gravitational fields strongly suggests that those fields are affecting the clocks readings in some form or another.

In what way does gravity affect atomic clocks? If you don’t know of a mechanism by which gravity affects atomic clocks, then why reject relativity?

@Jim

I’m not concerned about measurements of duration of time. My concern is about the nature of time itself.

It seems that you are more interested in finding ways to reject the idea that time itself is affected in different inertial frames.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

So instead of “time is fundamentally unverifiable,” to reflect what I’m concerned with it should say “ the nature of time is fundamentally unverifiable.” And by fundamentally unverifiable I’m assuming you mean beyond the limits of what is or ever will be humanly possible technologically, or otherwise, to verify. It’s not that duration of time cannot be measured, it’s that the nature of time cannot be verified. For one thing it’s not even clear what exactly it is. In fact, we cannot even say for sure whether its existence is concrete or abstract.

OK, well, then I would say that you’re basically going with option 2, just with slightly different semantics. In that case, further discussion of evidence for special relativity is moot, since your position is empirically unassailable - it is simply anti-realist. For you, the nature of time is a fundamentally mysterious reality. Even if we can measure the duration of time using clocks, “duration” doesn’t exhaust what time is.

However, your replies to @T_aquaticus seem to betray a different position, which such as this:

@Jim

The cause of the clocks recording different rates. I would argue that the fact that the clocks are in different positions within the Earth’s gravitational fields strongly suggests that those fields are affecting the clocks readings in some form or another.

This seems to imply that if someone investigates the effect of Earth’s gravitational fields on atomic clocks, then you might change your position that the nature of time is fundamentally unverifiable.

Which one is it? Does your position depend on empirical evidence or not?

@Jim

So if I understand this correctly, you don’t seem to think we can infer from evidence with any degree of certainty truth about entities or events that are fundamentally unverifiable. Is that correct?

Yes, but that’s a tautology. It’s basically saying, using empirical evidence we cannot verify things which are unverifiable. There’s not much content in that statement.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jim

I think the confusion may be with conflating the measurement of duration of time with the actual nature of time

Then, for the sake of discussion, let us un-conflate and allow that empirical measurements only measure duration of time. Could you at least define the essential nature of time apart from duration, physically or metaphysically, - however you please, in any way that suits you. If time is undefinable, it is certainly unverifiable.

I do not think of time in terms of duration, but ratios of events. In a given a frame of reference, in the time it takes for earth to circle the sun, the moon completes a little more that 12 orbits, and light travels a given distance. In the time it takes for the moon to orbit the earth, the earth complete about 30 rotations. In the time it takes for the earth to complete a rotation, your heart may beat over 100,000 times. There is no need for an absolute time, because all these events scale together anyways. The subjective experience of duration between these events is just that, and as attributed to Einstein, varies with the presence of a pretty girl versus discomfort of contact with a red hot cinder.

Under relativity, all inertial frames of reference would experience the same ratios within their frame, and they all may well insist that they are stationary and in sync with some deeper, universal time. It is only when individuals in different frames attempt to count the frequency of events in each other’s frames with respect to the same duration in their own does a difference register. Thus, the person in the “stationary” frame finds the ratio of similar events, stationary clock to moving clock, stationary heartbeat to moving heartbeat, to be greater in the “moving” frame. Thus, if time is simply a matter of ratios, relativity really does describe it.